Palin is yesterday's gal. She burned brightly for a little while, but sometimes the Charlie Gibsons of the world aren't wrong. Her rant for Newt is almost as embarrassing as Newt's own ravings of the past week.

He's accusing Romney of "lies," without citing one factual inaccuracy. She's joining in. They're both overlooking the fact that bona fide conservatives, people whose credentials never get doubted in the way Romney's do (like Tom Coburn), are as scathing in their assessment of Gingrich as the supposed "establishment."

Moreover, how do either of them see this type of campaigning, this constant self-pity and victimization, as attracting voters? I do think the pity pot sort of worked for Newt in SC, in particular the crying about John King and ABC. But that's a trick you can play once. What has Gingrich said lately that would tell you what kind of campaign he would run against Obama, or how he would govern. No, it's all about that mean old Romney.

It is what it is. Gingrich is coming off as the old man, an old man full of spite and regrets. If he really doesn't want Romney to win, the only decent thing he could do is drop out and endorse Santorum, who is a legitimate and worthy adversary for Romney. Instead, he's sinking both of them. And taking Palin with him by prompting her to this baseless and stupid attack.

Very simple: refuse to vote for anyone who has not been properly vetted. Would you hire the only applicant for a job who didn't have a resume? You can only assume that stuff being hidden has got to be bad.

Those who voted for Obama, lowered the bar on our politics and politicians, and that was worse than electing a bad President. In fact, if we luck out and he ends up being a good President, that damage is even worse. His failure is needed now to return people to healthy skepticism. That vote was simply weak and short sighted, and the justification - which I do understand - does not cover it .

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

McCain never fully articulated a cohesive vision for the future of the country. He was as bad of a presidential candidate as I've ever seen.

Here's a clue: Get yourself perceived as The Messiah and the good people of the United States of America will refrain from crucifying you.

The establishment -- as well as those in the mushy middle who claim to be former libs mugged by reality, but who nevertheless voted Obama, and will likely vote for him again because their residual kneejerk antipathy for conservatives exceeds their disgust at liberals -- have annointed Romney as the nation's savior.

Is that why Romney is to be exempted from deep scrutiny, and any defects (including those which are gross disqualifications for the office) are to be excused and dismisssed out of hand?

Well, we can be sure the Messiah wouldn't cheat on his wife, marry his adulterous co-conspirator, then cheat on her, and marry the next one.

I suppose Palin would have a point if she said it was like they were dragging Gingrich out in the field and stoning him....

In general she has a lot in common with Newt. They both resigned, and quit on the job. Newt resigned because of scandal and it was very likely a deal where he agreed to resigned to save face from them really destroying him with his ethical issues. I now wonder if it's the same for Palin -- the Democrats in Alaska gave her a choice to resign or be brought down in scandal.

Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough, because we've never gotten enough. There are many things we still don't know. You can say that you wanted more, that you asked for more, and that you were never convinced he should be President and didn't vote for him. But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America.

#2: President Obama did try and work with Republicans in Congress---they simply refuse to respond in kind. Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country.

"But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America."

Actually, I think there was plenty that was known about him that indicated back in 2008 that he would not be a good President. For example, his history of voting "Present" on difficult issues while in the Illinois Senate, his very leftist leaning voting record in the US Senate (albeit a short record), and his utter lack of experience in anything that would benefit him in his first executive experience.

In other words, I think there was easily "objectively enough" information that would lead someone to conclude that he should not be President.

I Am as conservative as they come, and here is the list of politicians running for office I consider incapable of mirroring my conservatism.

1) Barack Obama - Nuff' said.2) Mitt Romney - He governed as a RINO. The establishment RINO's are pushing him like crack to a junkie.3) Newt Gingrich - He's a big government guy with the gift of gab. He's not quite a RINO but he's awfully close.4) Rick Santorum - Again big government RINO lite without Newts gab.5) Ron Paul - Libertarians are just old Democrats.

The problem is that 2-4 is worlds better than 1. So much so, that it's not even close.2-4 will still send us over the debt canyon, but at a walk as opposed to Obama's full sprint.

So I don't care who wins the republican nomination. They could dig up Reagan, zombiefy him, and make him the nomination with the platform of a brain in every pot, and I would vote for Zombie Reagan over Obama.

If they brought in Hugo Chavez, I think I would vote for him, because at least Chavez looks out for his people. Obama has done nothing, let me repeat that, NOTHING for this country.

He's the most divisive POS to ever come out of Chicago, and in a few months he'll be able to go back home. The one thing I relish is that when Moochie gets out of the WH, she won't be able to order us around anymore, so all that ABW will be aimed right at his ass.(instant karma gonna what?)

Ann Althouse said... Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough, because we've never gotten enough. There are many things we still don't know. You can say that you wanted more, that you asked for more, and that you were never convinced he should be President and didn't vote for him. But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America.

Truly, this is the most pathetic comment ever.

Hello.

Listen, you can say, as you have, that you looked at McCain, and you looked at Zero, and Zero looked possibly better. Really, if you limited your choices to them, who could blame you for not choosing McCain, who is ... well ... a moron.

But there was plenty of info out there to asses the Zero, and many of us correctly did just that. For those who are "surprised" at what they got, they just weren't looking.

We got enough to know that Obama would govern exactly as he has, and that he would be a spectacular crash-and-burn. We knew enough to say Election Night 2008 that America had voted for national suicide.

But people didn't care.

Just like we know enough about the utterly disqualified Romney, and people don't care.

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

Partly true.

I think conservatives saw McCain as wanting on economic issues, and were able to thus talk themselves into buying into Obama because of the stage-managed perception that Obama had a better grasp of what was going on in the specific time frame of post-Lehman's collapse.

This is why I think the media bears a larger share of the blame for Obama's failed administration than is usually the case. They vouched for expertise he didn't really have.

But if you'd had a stronger candidate on economic issues on the GOP ticket in 2008, the media's cheerleading wouldn't have mattered as much.

The point being: The GOP picked the wrong guy, and then he went ahead and picked the wrong VP. Had McCain picked Romney instead of Palin, he would have had someone he could put out there to talk about the appropriate governmental response to the sudden onset of economic chaos in ways he couldn't.

Instead, he had Palin, who could talk with authority about energy, but not much else.

The fact that Obama had the thinnest resume was enough not to vote for him.

McCain voted against the W. tax cuts and Medicare Part D, and is a big proponent of Wilson/Kennedy military interventions around the world. McCain had a predicatable record. He like balanced budgets and he likes war.

There were reasons not to vote for McCain. There were no reasons to vote for Obama.

OK, Ann. How about this.Didn't the fact that he was Chicago street organizer raise any flags? How about his sweet deal with Tony Rezco?His lack of college or even high school transcripts. How his wife got her job? The total lack of results for his foundation work? His relationship with Bill Ayers?

He's from fucking Chicago! The most politically corrupt city in the country!What do you want us to? Staple it to your forehead?Jaysus, girl.

Andy R. said...I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

Obama campaigned on ending the Bush tax cuts, but extended them.

Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo, it is open.

President-elect Barack Obama pledged Tuesday to eliminate unnecessary government spending and programs, yet the deficit has doubled and the federal debt has increased by 36%.

#2: President Obama did try and work with Republicans in Congress---they simply refuse to respond in kind. Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country.

Obama's policies that have been implemented have been bad for the country.

Althouse: "You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure..."

Jesus H. Christ on horseback.

Consider what information there was available to voters: The Goddamn Amerikkka church; ties to the mad bomber William Ayers; just a couple of years of experience as a legislator, and none as an executive in any capacity; Obama's own statements, where he vowed to raise taxes even if it cost the government revenue, out of "fairness".

If that information wasn't enough to persuade an Obama voter from attempting to assuage her liberal white guilt by voting for an underqualified communist, then my playing part-time Nancy Drew and trying to unearth the details of Obama's college transcripts or the details of what he did in the Chicago political machine would not have made one wet fart's worth of difference.

Don't blame this shit on us. We told you until we were sick of reading our own comments.

Martin Gore said he was inspired to write Personal Jesus from Pricilla's relationship with Elvis Presley. He noticed that around him and thought it wasn't a very good idea to make somebody your own personal savior like that. That song is on all my playlists. It looks very good in sign too but that is incidental to its awesomeness.

Look, when you got one guy attacking and running against the Republicans, and you got the other guy who is a rabid, pro-abortion Marxist, the Republican ticket hasn’t got a chance.

That there was no one better who was running, for that, too, McCain should be held to answer. He spends the last seven years fragging his own party, giving the opposition cover for attacking conservatives and Republicans, including legitimizing Bush-hate, with the result of not gaining the respect of Dems and independents, and only sabotaging the Party, so is it any surprise that any possible up-and-coming stars out in the states were snuffed out in the crib and, thus, not in a position to run?

Time to settle all family business. The McCain camp, big-tent moderates, anti-Palin elites. Give them the Carlo Rizzi treatment. It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.

It is John McCain and his “maverickism” that blew a gaping hole in the Republican Party; it was McCain and his anti-Bushism that helped foster and feed totally irrational Bush-hate, thereby dragging down, not only Bush, but conservatives and the entire Party; it was McCain and the Gang of 14 and the rest of the “Republican” moderates that have decimated the Party.

It was this idea, for way, way, way too long of “let’s not do that,” that we must have a big tent and must support and elect a whole bunch of people on the Republican ballot who are antithetical to Republican and conservative principles, that left us with nary a single viable candidate for president this year. It was maverickism and big tentism that left us with a tent full of squishes and worms and slick used car salesmen.

This idea that McCain would be the Dems’ worst nightmare, because he is so loved by Dems and independents, pushed on us by elites and those who know better than anyone else (like the Maverick), was a blatently obviously falacious idea from the get-go because it was clear that they would all abandon him as quickly as they could. It was clear to all who had eyes to see that the most likely outcome was total ruin. And that is what McCain has brought us.

Well, if we have now crashed and burned, the wisest thing to do would be to rebuild the right way, to purify, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Rasmussen has Obama up by 9 over Romney in Florida. I agree with Palin, annoy a liberal and vote for Newt! Both Gingrich and Romney should be scrutinized to the fullest. We don't want a repeat of 2008!

Respectfully, I disagree with the "we." I do feel that I put quite a lot if effort into following Obama's career and evaluating his background in the run-up to 2008. I assume you did, too. Obviously, we came to different decisions, no doubt also in part to a different weighing of McCain and what his presidency might look like, etc. I'm fine with that, which is why I've not poked at you over your vote over the past few years. Please show similar respect.

I'm trying to see things your way, Althouse, and I'm drawing a blank here. I cannot bring myself to feel any personal responsibility for the election of Obama.

Hell, I even contributed to the McCain campaign. It wasn't much -- but it was the first contribution I've ever made to a political candidate.

And I made it to...McCain. Basically, I ate a giant shit-sandwich in an effort to prevent Obama from being elected.

I really don't see what I could have done, personally, to change the course of history. I cast my vote; it was canceled out by yours. Well, actually no; we're in different states. My vote was canceled by one of Mickey Mouse's 60 votes cast in Cleveland.

Who votes for people these days? I think many votes for McCain were actually just against Obama.

Bender, your good analysis doesn't go back in history long enough. Take it back to the South Carolina primary Bush v. McCain when the whispers about McCain's kids started and he crashed. How could McCain not take that personally? Karl Rove's work, IIRC, and look what it got his party!

In potential Election 2012 matchups, it’s President Obama 47% and Romney 41%. However, if Gingrich is his Republican opponent, the president holds a double-digit lead, 52% to 35%. That’s the president’s biggest lead over Romney since November and his largest advantage over Gingrich since October. (see tracking history). That’s consistent with the uptick in the president’s approval rating over recent months and an increase in consumer confidence

I was well aware of the lack of real achievement, the associations, the black liberation theology and the community organizing. That the MSM chose to ignore these facts amounts to journalistic malpractice. Facts are stubborn things and don't bear any resemblance to 'crucifixion', in this case a drama word used to deflect/distract.

Well that's even better news garage because that's a national poll not just Florida.

So it would appear that despite adding an additional $5 trillion in debt with unemployment still 9% and no end in sight to trillion dollar deficits, Obama has convinced enough people to give him four more years to completely screw the nation over.

Although, frankly, I think there was enough information in 2008 to see Obama as a disaster waiting to happen. People made a poor choice and now they want absolution by claiming theynogulik didn't have enough information.

"... I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect..."

Could be. Then again the unemployment numbers, soaring Federal debt and deficit are readily available on government websites and major news publications and not right wing blogs. But then maybe the majority are reading Kim Kardashians Twitter posts since she's so effing hawt.

We do know there are far more self-identified conservatives then liberals but I think liberals are several times more likely to read blogs then conservatives, especially religious conservatives who disdain the internet, but they do vote.

I'm a little puzzled by the people who think Obama wasn't properly vetted. His record was short, and his life was literally two open books actually written by him. I don't pretend to be all that prescient, but I got pretty much the leader I expected with one exception, and I knew it was a question for someone with that short of a track record: how would he handle the unprecedented executive power Bush/Cheney left him?

Unfortunately, he took it and ran. Some of it resulted in good things like OBL being killed, torture allegedly stopped, and our terror posture seems to be more strategic and less oriented to nation building. The downside is we still have Gitmo, Libya happened, and accountability in this space seems nearly nonexistent.

So Ann I'm puzzled as to what you feel like you didn't know prior to January 2009?

This reminds me of the Iraq debate. Many people who voted for the war said "if we only knew". The evidence was there all along, we just chose to ignore it.

garage mahal said...Where did you get Obama adding 5 trillion in new debt?

Um, On Obama’s watch so far, the size of the cumulative federal debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.8 trillion — about 40 percent — and it continues to climb.

Obama has called for higher spending.

Under Obama, federal government spending has exploded by more than $600 billion per year. In President George W. Bush’s last full year in office, federal spending was just under $3 trillion; under Obama, it increased to approximately $3.6 trillion. That’s an increase of more than 20 percent…For example, the State Department and other international assistance went from $47 billion in 2008 to $58 billion in 2010. The Labor’s Department’s budget authority went from $57 billion in 2008 to $179 billion in 2010.Most of the new spending was the result of policy choices by the president and congressional allies. During 2009 and 2010, federal agencies and programs saw extraordinary increases in their budgets.

It's not hard. It was a little over $10 trillion when Bush left and its $15 trillion right now.

You made the claim Obama is responsible for 5 trillion in new spending. But now you're stuck like chuck because either you don't know the actual figure, or you're playing a bit of sleight of hand. Combination of both is my guess. It's one of Jay's favorite tricks.

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

Not likely. McCain was a weak, squishy RINO candidate, so a number of conservatives stayed home. Also, Obama only got 53% of the vote. And, if the above were true, the Republicans wouldn't have run away with so many house races and nearly taken back the senate.

Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The important distinction between the vesting clause in Article I and this Vesting Clause is that this one is Plenary (i.e., it implies the power the executive to fall in line with what other "executives" around the world at the time could do) whereas the power vested in Article I is subject to limits to be outlined in later sections.

The President has to power to execute laws, not make them. Only Congress is allowed to make laws.

One thing I've noticed is that people who get up and quote the Constitution are considered loonies/crazies by the media and average people. Doesn't matter if it's Robert Byrd or a Republican. It's like if you start quoting the Articles - people look at you like you have a 2nd head. It's all about reality TV, iPhones, lattes and Cancun. If you talk about anything truly meaningful, their eyes glaze over.

I think she's got a point. Republicans are going on the airwaves, for example, slamming him for the ethics charges and implying that he resigned due to that. He didn't. He admitted to a minor ethics violation and the IRS cleared him of any wrongdoing. He resigned because the Republicans did poorly in the 1998 elections. The ethics and IRS allegations were largely dirty tricks by the Democrats. . .and Republicans now are going along with it.

Not to mention using a member of the very same MSM that consistently works against Republicans -- Tom Brokaw -- in an anti-Newt ad.

Which isn't to say the reverse isn't also going on, e.g., Romney being all rich and stuff.

Like Insty says, if anyone can run against this President's record and blow it. . .it's the Republicans.

Hoosier - POTUS proposes a budget, but Congress has to pass their version which may be higher or lower in spending, higher or lower in taxes. The POTUS can only give his preference, but it has no binding in Constitutional law.

Then again the unemployment numbers, soaring Federal debt and deficit are readily available on government websites and major news publications and not right wing blogs.

C'mon guys, let's be honest here. As Reagan conservatives, we've never really cared much about Federal debt, deficits and unemployment except when Democrats are in the White House.

The things we really care about are keeping the military strong, keeping the liberals from taking our guns, keeping homosexuals from getting married and keeping women from getting abortions. We need to remember to focus on the big three in 2012: God, guns and gays.

Not likely. McCain was a weak, squishy RINO candidate, so a number of conservatives stayed home.

That's a big, fat myth. 34 percent of 2008's voters identified as conservatives, the exact same percentage as 2004, with higher turnout. So actually more self-identified conservatives showed up in 2008.

Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama. I also think my theory is correct, that you had some conservatives vote for Obama not because McCain was "squishy" but because he positioned himself as not particularly conversant with economic issues, while Obama had the media's help in positioning HIM as some kind of cool, globally-minded, intellectual who could handle the looming economic crisis.

I said at the time that if McCain had picked Romney as his running mate, he might have won, because Romney would have been instantly perceived as a competent sidekick on the matter that was roiling the electorate. I still think that.

Hoosier - true enough the POTUS can refuse to sign the budget but political reality dictates that he has no choice. Which political reality existed that allowed any President to veto anything but a balanced budget? Let's not lay this all on Bush/Obama - the American people are mostly to blame.

No, Will. My point was that gay marriage and abortion matter a lot less than they used to, to growing number of conservatives. The argument for not picking out paint colors while the house is burning down come to mind.

I assumed you were trying to be ironic and failing at it. If that was not the case, I misunderstood your point.

John Stodder wrote: Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama.

You're certainly entitled to think that but in view of the Medved article you linked I would like to see a count of those whom Palin inspired to vote for McCain.

The Republican camp remains as split as ever--on the one hand you have the Cedarfordian Palin-loathers who actually voted for Obama (I count Althouse among them for her lame excuse for negative voting). On the other hand there is the Tea Party wing which Establishment Republicans need to newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace.

Your man Obama (I remember how you voted) loves the divisiveness, being an astute student of Lincoln.

Garage just doesn't want to acknowledge that the federal debt went from $10 to $15 trillion since Obama took office. Not surprising, being in perpetual denial is the only way liberals can rationalize their beliefs.

Garage, Because you and the rest of the left seemed quite comfortable with attaching all debt incurred during President Bush's terms to President Bush, If feel quite comfortable doing the same for President Obama. The numbers were highlighted earlier, if you want them itemized look it up.

Do you think the number is not $3.7 trillion? I know that makes President Obama look horrible by comparison, but what other conclusion are we to draw?

Garage just doesn't want to acknowledge that the federal debt went from $10 to $15 trillion since Obama took office.

I probably dislike our socialist president more than any of you, but your numbers are wrong. In three years Obama has created deficits worth $3.7 trillion. That's a whole lot of money so exaggeration isn't necessary.

Garage, I'll take it by your snark, or your attempt at snark that you agree with those numbers. In other words, Obama has been horrible as far as keeping the debt down, which is the opposite of what he promised. Another mendacious politician who was able to convince a whole lot of rubes to vote for him.

On the other hand there is the Tea Party wing which Establishment Republicans need to newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace.

Huh? Maybe the Establishment Republicans (whatever specific individuals you mean by that) are in a covert conspiracy to "newter and destroy" the Tea Party, I don't know. But I certainly have never heard "establishment republicans" talk like that. I guess they're clever to disguise their nefarious motives.

On the other hand, one keeps hearing many self-described Tea Party true conservatives fulminating all through the primaries about the need to "newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace" The Establishment, the RINOS, etc., even at the cost of a second Obama term. All or nothing; not-Romney or we don't vote. The Establishment Republicans aren't the purists and schismatics, here.

As someone with great sympathy for the original Tea Party values (before it just became this populist anti-establishment demagoguery being pushed by Palin, sometimes even with an anti-capitalist OWS tinge), as someone who used to be a Palin fan (but now can't stand her), I'm saddened by this state of affairs. I don't know who you would consider part of The Establishment (nowadays, the term seems to mean anyone who's anti-Newt or pro-Romney), but whoever they are, they aren't the ones pushing for a GOP crack-up.

That's a big, fat myth. 34 percent of 2008's voters identified as conservatives, the exact same percentage as 2004, with higher turnout. So actually more self-identified conservatives showed up in 2008.

Quoting an article by a squishy RINO (Medved) is not going to convince me that I'm wrong here.

Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama

Then why did McCain's numbers go up when Palin was added to the ticket?

I also think my theory is correct, that you had some conservatives vote for Obama not because McCain was "squishy" but because he positioned himself as not particularly conversant with economic issues, while Obama had the media's help in positioning HIM as some kind of cool, globally-minded, intellectual who could handle the looming economic crisis.

We are mostly in agreement here.

I said at the time that if McCain had picked Romney as his running mate, he might have won, because Romney would have been instantly perceived as a competent sidekick on the matter that was roiling the electorate. I still think that.

I don't think it would have made much difference. People were sick of Bush (or should I say the media's constant denigration of Bush), so whoever the Dem was going to be would probably have won. However, I (and most conservatives I know) would NOT have voted for McCain if he hadn't picked Palin. The media are just as much to blame for Palin's demise as they are for lifting up Obama - they pushed him across the finish line.

@Yashu: I didn't invent to term "Establishment Republican." Look back to 1948 or 1952, for example. It's also true for the Democratic Party. And stop being so polemic just for the sake of being polemic. Populism has a loong history. A real compromise needs to happen--otherwise--Obama gleefully wins.

But I agree 100% with this! All I'm saying is, in your description, you characterized the "establishment Republicans" as the uncompromising ones. At the present moment, I just don't think that's true. On the contrary, much conservative rhetoric lately goes: if you're willing to compromise, you're just being co-opted by The Establishment.

"And stop being so polemic just for the sake of being polemic."

But who's being polemical here? That's what I'd like to see too, from a lot of the so-called Tea Party wing (so-called, because I see a lot of people appropriating the "Tea Party" "anti-establishment" label opportunistically & hypocritically-- like Newt). The overblown polemical rhetoric is precisely what I'm lamenting, and that's why I dislike the game Palin is playing (Alinsky! Crucifixion! The Establishment!) on behalf of *Newt Gingrich* (?!), which makes no sense whatsoever.

As someone with great sympathy for the original Tea Party values (before it just became this populist anti-establishment demagoguery being pushed by Palin, sometimes even with an anti-capitalist OWS tinge), as someone who used to be a Palin fan (but now can't stand her), I'm saddened by this state of affairs. I don't know who you would consider part of The Establishment (nowadays, the term seems to mean anyone who's anti-Newt or pro-Romney), but whoever they are, they aren't the ones pushing for a GOP crack-up.

Amen.

This "establishment Republican" allegation is a sheer canard in 2012. Romney is a lone wolf just as much as Gingrich is. He is less moored to the DC establishment than Gingrich. He has become, by default, the choice of those who think, not without foundation, that Gingrich is a giant asshole irrespective of whether you buy into the idea of him as a conservative (not everyone does) or the even more absurd idea that he is a Tea Party conservative (which requires immense gullibility or drunkenness.) The man is an unstable narcissist who is the worst kind of politician. The fact that every so often he says something Tea Party-esque just shows what a fabulous thief he is of ideas and energy that he has nothing to do with producing.

I loathe Gingrich. I'd feel that way whether he was a liberal, a conservative, or if he'd gotten Google to hand over all my ideas and announced that he agreed with all of them.

You anti-establishment conservatives: The bastard is PLAYING you.

Romney might not have the perfect pedigree for you. But if I recall correctly, the Tea Party originated in a dire concern for the amount of debt the bailouts and stimulus and health care plan were incurring on this nation and our descendants. It wasn't just an attitude, which is the insult Gingrich is paying you all, acting as if attitude is everything. It was a specific set of concerns that enwrapped a lot of Americans, including some you guys now, in a Pavlovian impulse call RINOs. Romney is best equipped to deliver on what you say you want. Gingrich wants a colony on the moon.

Santorum is pretty good, actually; I'm not a social conservative so I have trouble with his anti-gay stuff and his overidentification with cops, but fiscally he would be a fair option. Go with him if you want to vent your spleen against Romney. Let it go down to those two. Don't let Gingrich punk you in his private psychological games, which have little to do with this country, and nothing to do with what you care about.

What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough

There was enough available to both of us to convince anyone who wasn't an utter fool. I'm not sure what would have been necessary to convince an utter fool, because I'm not one. You probably don't know either, because you are one.

you are part of the collective failure

If everyone had done what I did, the country would have been vastly stronger and the world vastly safer. If everyone had done what you did, we'd be in the same mess we're in now.

even then it was more important to the Republican establishment crowd to savage Palin than to stop Obama.

Not really, not until after the election. Before the election, the people you perceive as the RE pretty much kept their mouths shut about their misgivings about Palin.

I liked Palin. I did vote for Obama, but that was more a case of allowing myself to be sold a false image. Mea culpa. But Palin didn't stop me from voting for McCain, and I loved her convention speech. Her interviews on ABC and CBS were painful, but I thought it was a case of her being unprepared, which she was. But I had hopes for her.

Not anymore, though. She's a Kardashian in my opinion. In love with attention. She is authentic in her views -- in that sense she is vastly preferable to Newt -- but she is useless as a force for good public policy, because she'd rather just have attention, not responsibility. Perhaps because she knows her limits.

Santorum is pretty good, actually; I'm not a social conservative so I have trouble with . . .

This and I agree with the Santorum take as well. We're simply not in a place to worry about the social conservative agenda right [now]

So you guys have no trouble whatsoever with Romney's assertions of being socially conservative? Of being against same-sex "marriage" and saying that he is pro-life?

Or are you not worried about Romney's purported social conservativism because you know that he doesn't really mean it? That he wants the votes of social conservatives, but he'll never actually deliver anything for them. That he will mouth a few platitudes to fool social conservatives into voting for him, but once they do, he won't give those issues a second thought?

Point of order: The Tea Party was not about TARP and Stimulus. It spontaneously arose when NO politician sent home to explain ObamaCare in August 2009 would listen to anything the older folks wanted to say to them about Sarah Palin's alert to the Death Panels being the main part of new Nationalized Health Care.

They only listened after the 2010 mid-terms... for a few months and then they turned stone cold deaf again behind the Romney wing of the GOP.

Romney has been selected to be a channel for the politicians in the GOP to crush what's left of the Tea party rebellion.

Or are you not worried about Romney's purported social conservativism because you know that he doesn't really mean it?

I know enough members of the LDS church to know that he certainly means it. On abortion, he's really pretty unassailable from the right. But he's enough of a businessman to know that resolving these issues in a diverse society like the US right now would require far too much political capital in a time when there are much higher priorities.

From what you wrote, I gather you would rather see gay marriage banned and abortion outlawed than the debt reduced, government shrunk and Obamacare repealed. If that's the case, you're not in my party. And I don't think you're in the Tea Party either. Perhaps you're with Pat Robertson in thinking that our economic and foreign policy challenges are God's curse on us for allowing these social apostasies. Again, fine for you, not for me.

Point of order: The Tea Party was not about TARP and Stimulus. It spontaneously arose when NO politician sent home to explain ObamaCare in August 2009 would listen to anything the older folks wanted to say to them about Sarah Palin's alert to the Death Panels being the main part of new Nationalized Health Care.

You're off by a few months. It started in February 2009. It started really before that, but the name "Tea Party" wasn't attached to it until Rick Santelli had a widely-publicized rant on CNBC. Before that it was a protest against Porkulus, the grassroots name for the stimulus. The first protests were later that month.

Certainly, the Obamacare bill was galvanizing, but the movement was already rising by August; that's why they were able to turn so many people out to the Congressional open houses that became such debacles for the Democrats.

If the Tea Party has faded in influence, I'll tell you, it's not because of the Tea Party members nor is it because of the Republican Establishment. It's because of false friends like Gingrich and Palin who want the Tea Party movement to be, in effect, their tickets. Why would the Tea Party ever want Newt Gingrich's baggage. But he sure has put it on them.

If the Tea Party has faded in influence, I'll tell you, it's not because of the Tea Party members nor is it because of the Republican Establishment. It's because of false friends like Gingrich and Palin who want the Tea Party movement to be, in effect, their tickets.

Amen to that.

The Tea Party is about economic and size-of-government issues. It was never supposed to be about being a doctrinaire Republican or conservative with all the military and social-conservatism issues that entails.

I know enough members of the LDS church to know that he certainly means it. On abortion, he's really pretty unassailable from the right. But he's enough of a businessman to know that resolving these issues in a diverse society like the US right now would require far too much political capital in a time when there are much higher priorities.I don’t think that there’s much any President can do about abortion other than in their judicial appointees which are pretty much a crap shoot anyway. Each Party has its own array of legal talent to draw from and the candidates from the respective talent pools do tend to “lean” in a particular direction but no President can ever guarantee how a judicial nominee will vote on a particular issue. At the end of the day, what we’re voting for in choosing a Republican or Democratic President is which pool of talent that next batch of judges will come from.

A couple of days after the election, Boehner was out there saying that nothing much would happen because Republicans controlled "only one-half of one-third of the branches of the federal government.".

I must have missed that press conference but I do recall during the special session that extended unemployment benefits and ethanol subsidies in exchange for a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts how Boehner argued that since the special session wasn’t technically part of the 2010 session, the new spending that they voted for shouldn’t count against what they agreed to cut from the baseline.

Technically he may have been correct but it demonstrated an utter lack of good faith on his part and told me all that I needed to know about how much I could trust him to fulfill the promises that he ran on.